At the beginning of the interview in an English pub the guy with the mic asks George from across the table "what do you think you'd of done if the Beatles weren't the massive hit they were or even if they weren't successful at all ?". George, looking intensely at the interviewer with a straight face, says, "ahhhhh, been Paul". George laughs after saying this. So does the interview guy. I don't know if the interviewer knows why he's laughing but he follows George and laughs along with him.This exchange between the two starts at exactly one minute and thirty seconds.George's laugh is a tell. What he's saying could be anything, but please, someone look at this and discus.Is he saying that if they weren't successful, they'd of done something like what Paul did when he became successful, like doing other things behind the scenes related to music ? Is he saying that if they didn't make the big time, they'd be dead, as in like Paul is dead ? A little voice is telling me right now, that Paul may have committed suicide. I hope I'm wrong.This is very intense, this short exchange, and how George is saying something that is very important yet he's masking what he's saying and covering it with a laugh.Someone please help !! What is he saying here ?Thank you, this is so intense.

bandi wrote:At the beginning of the interview in an English pub the guy with the mic asks George from across the table "what do you think you'd of done if the Beatles weren't the massive hit they were or even if they weren't successful at all ?". George, looking intensely at the interviewer with a straight face, says, "ahhhhh, been Paul".

Someone please help !! What is he saying here ? Thank you, this is so intense.

I believe he said "...Been poor?" Then he said they would've had more fun playing in clubs "like the old band". From what I'm hearing, he said they would've been poor and unknown, and enjoyed it much more.

Now, it's time to play "Which George Said That?". (Once in a while this thing needs to be fun...)

Was it one of these two?

In this first comparison of the George Harrison multiples, the one on the right is touted on TKIN as the REAL ORIGINAL George Harrison, yet on the left, he was the one in the 1963 Sweden performance, and possibly the 1964 US performance. That's a younger photo. Notice all the differences.

What about these two, when they're a little older? Are either of them the same as the above two? I think they might be, except for being reversed.This was posted at Fab Four Dozen in 2013. However, I do not know that one is the 'real' GH and the other is a double, even though someone has already captioned the photos according to their belief.

In the comparison below, the one in the middle does not match the other two. Notice the different nose, for one thing. Their eyes, for another.

George on the left was around way early and later, too - as we have shown many times:

Are all of these Georges the same in each category below?

Some Georges have very level eyes, and a mostly symmetrical face.

And some Georges have a lower left eye and an asymmetrical face.(and notice the different jaw lines, higher nostril, and chin lengths on all these Georges).

Aha! George in the interview has a lower left eye...

There's a few Georges with lower right eyes.

It's clear that no one who believes in one George and one "Feorge" can agree on who the original or 'real' George is, just like they can't with Paul. It's the same with all 4 Beatles. One person's Paul is another person's Faul, and so on. What will it take for them to realize they are all seeing different (multiple) Beatles in the same eras?

Was he serious when he said on that '70s interview with Dick Cavett that the Beatles who came to America were a "dummy group"? And Japan, and Germany, etc.?? And asked Cavett if he'd met "the other 8 Beatles", then said there were "hundreds" of them. I know, most people say he was being facetious, but what better way to say the truth and have it not be believed? (On purpose.)

Thanks for playing!

Here's a question for you: Were their interviews scripted? How and why were there so many different Georges, et al?

Well, I have no excuse other than a vivid imagination sometimes ! I really thought he said 'Paul' right up until you pointed it out. Ooops !

What I found neat was that the George guy didn't seem to have bodyguards. Something else though that bothered me was how during the course of the conversation the interviewer wouldn't let George finish his thoughts. Almost as if he was on speed pills, which he probably wasn't, but he'd ask a question and GH would only be allowed to finish some of the answer before the other guy would talk over him. I find that disgusting and a sign of zero discipline on the part of the interviewer. That happens to me ALL the time when others are engaged in a conversation with me. They'll hear something in what I'm saying, a fraction of my response, then interrupt me to say what's on their mind based on the incomplete response during the exchange. I think that cern thing is screwing people up big time. NO ONE has any patience anymore, greed is at an all time high, selfishness is the norm, the all-for-me and NOTHING for the other person is standard operating procedure. It's getting over the top.Sorry for venting.

In this first comparison of the George Harrison multiples, the one on the right is touted on TKIN as the REAL ORIGINAL George Harrison, yet on the left, he was the one in the 1963 Sweden performance, and possibly the 1964 US performance. That's a younger photo. Notice all the differences.

What about these two, when they're a little older? Are either of them the same as the above two? I think they might be, except for being reversed.This was posted at Fab Four Dozen in 2013. However, I do not know that one is the 'real' GH and the other is a double, even though someone has already captioned the photos according to their belief.

Well, to satisfy my curiosity, I put this comparison together, and I'm satisfied that the two on the top match each other pretty well, as do the two on the bottom, although it still doesn't tell us which one came first, or whether there was an original.